Comparing the discovery of Earth's foundation rocks with what Andrew and ICR now propose about granites originating from
fossiliferous sedimentary rocks.

"The initial focus of the research has been granitic rocks that had to
have formed during the Flood year. In each case there is unequivocal
evidence that the granitic rocks formed by the melting during
metamorphism (changes in rocks induced by heat and pressure) of
fossiliferous Flood-deposited sedimentary layers, and that the resultant
granitic magmas (melted rocks) then intruded into other Flood-deposited
layers." [Impact #353]

Obviously, ICR's claim that granites formed from magma derived from
fossiliferous Flood-deposited sedimentary rocks is the opposite of what God's
Word has always plainly taught about the creation of Earth's primordial
rocks. It clearly contradicts the identification of granites as the biblical
foundations of the Earth, the rocks that God created in the beginning of
creation week. I may be in error but it seems to me that ICR will only
involve itself in additional contradictions if it continues to promote this
view. For this reason I hope it will reassess its position. To assist in
that decision I now focus on the only two possibilities for my analysis of
Earth's foundation rocks, and show that only one is realistic, and the other is
just plain unbiblical.

One possibility is that, if ICR's view were assumed to be
correct, then my analysis and conclusions about the Bible's teachings on
the foundations of the Earth must somehow have to be shown to be in
error. And the only way this could occur is for it to be demonstrated that
the obvious, commonly-understood meanings of the words of the Bible on this
most important topic are not the true meanings at
all; instead it would have to be somehow shown that God intended these words
to have vague and uncertain meanings, where each person can pick
and choose his own meanings, meanings that would then be open to question,
meanings such that it would be difficult to really ascertain the truth. It
would be like every man for himself. All would be free to pick and choose so
as to fit in their pet theory of how the Earth originated. In this case the
common man would have no chance to understand the biblical truth of creation
if he sought help from the experts.

On the other hand, if my analysis of what God's Word has always
plainly taught about the creation of Earth's primordial rocks is correct,
then the words of the Bible on this most important topic have their obvious
meaning. This would make it easy for the common man to conclude that God
meant for El Capitan, Mt. Rushmore and Pike's Peak to stand tall as
monuments of the accuracy of the literal meaning of Genesis. In that case it
would again be very easy for the common man to conclude that God
unmistakably marked the Genesis rocks as proof that He meant exactly what He said
on Mt. Sinai when Christ wrote with His own finger that, ". . . in six
days the Lord made heaven and Earth, the sea and all that in them is, and
rested the seventh day."

I think that some who read this might readily agree that only one of the
foregoing is realistic. Even so, there are certain tests available which
even further confirm this assessment. The first and foremost is from the
Bible itself. I again refer to that part of Andrew's 11/17/02 email, where
he says, "We would welcome you joining us in showing compromising
Christians and unbelievers alike that these evidences in God's world
powerfully support what God's Word has always plainly taught." I
am much pleased, that Andrew and ICR agree that we should stand on the
scriptures. That means in particular we must stand firmly on what Paul said
to the Galatians:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some
that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians
1:8-9)

So the fundamental reason underlying my belief that God did lead
in Andrew's earlier participations in the videos, as well as his
subsequent affirmations of them, is because they are clearly in accord with
the biblical definition of the granites being the
foundations of the Earth. Thus, in my view, there is no question that in
principle Paul's counsel applies to Andrew's earlier affirmations. So, even if
he were now to claim that an angel of heaven led him to different views,
I would be unable to go with him. In fact, I must strongly oppose him on
this matter. But how can I know for certain whether I must do this if ICR
persists in its present course?

Quite simply, if God did lead in Andrew's previous assessment of
granites and their enclosed polonium halos being primordial, it follows
there must be something drastically wrong with the evidence he and ICR now
cite as a basis for their promotion of a diametrically opposite view. If
facts do reveal fatal flaws in that position, then Andrew and ICR have, most
unfortunately — and up until now, most unwittingly —
become entwined
in the process of perpetrating one of the more significant misconceptions
ever to come upon the creation science community. If nothing else than for
my own edification, it behooves me to diligently pursue the truth about
these new claims. They must be critically tested in every possible way.